keyboard_arrow_uptop

There are several important things to say about the surprising, runaway division-leading Texas Rangers. The first thing we should say is that they might not actually be this good, or even close. They climbed to 45-25 on Sunday, but their run differential suggests they should have five wins fewer, and their second- and third-order winning percentages only push them further down. Their true talent level is not that of a 104-win team, or even a 94-win team. The Mariners trail Texas by 8.5 games in the standings, but are probably a better team.

Another thing to say about the Rangers: they’re outperforming their projections right now. Elvis Andrus has a .268 True Average this year, which is not only the highest of his career, but also outpaces his career TAv by over 20 points. It’s not exactly stunning, since Andrus is only 27 (yes, really, still), but there wasn’t much reason to expect this kind of breakout. His performance so far roughly matches PECOTA’s 80th percentile preseason projection for him. PECOTA projected Ryan Rua for a .260 TAv prior to this season, but with his .292 in 152 plate appearances so far, Rua has dragged the system’s esteem of him up to a rest-of-season projection of .265. Nomar Mazara was an elite prospect entering this season, but no one exactly foresaw him getting a serious opportunity this soon. PECOTA mostly matched him to players who didn’t play (or played sparingly) at age 21, and projected a .240 TAv if Mazara did see substantial playing time. Instead, Mazara is raking to the tune of a .283 TAv in a full-time role.

For my money, though, the most important thing to say about the Rangers is that their best player is Ian Desmond, whom they got for $8 million on a one-year deal on February 29. One could argue that that simply feeds the narrative (implicit within the observation of the gap between their actual record and their true talent indicators) that the Rangers have gotten lucky this year. One could also argue that it goes on the top of the pile of instances of Rangers players outpacing their projections, since Desmond has already nearly matched the 2.6 WARP for which PECOTA projected him before the season, and since his current .296 TAv would be the best of his career. I’m more inclined to focus on another element (and perhaps a tired one, but it’s important) of the story: the fact that we don’t have a clear idea of what relationship Desmond’s contract terms with the Rangers has with his actual market value.

It seems safe to assume that there’s some gap between what Desmond signed for and what he was really worth. The Nationals extended a qualifying offer to him last November, so he always had the loss of a Draft pick hanging around his neck when he and his agent went into negotiations with interested teams. Someone would have bet more on Desmond, and done it sooner, if it weren’t for his non-monetary cost.

The real crime here is that we don’t know whether the Rangers would have been that team, and we don’t know what they (or some other team) would have ended up paying to get the deal done. Desmond’s free agency was a fascinating case: a former star shortstop often beset by strikeout issues, but suddenly drowning in them. Desmond’s power degraded last season, and he had some fielding issues that made teams hesitant to approach him as a true shortstop. Yet, he could still play the position, was still a good baserunner and solid athlete, and still had average or better pop. He was only 29. If ever a player carried within him a wide range of possible outcomes, and so the potential for a wide range of valuations by various teams, it was Desmond. Yet, because of the Draft compensation issue hanging over him, the upside of Desmond went mostly unexplored, if not ignored altogether. No one wanted to gamble a draft pick on a player who had the potential to fail, even though Desmond’s track record (and even his second half in 2015) suggested utter failure was relatively unlikely.

We’re left unable to credit the Rangers with any particular acuity, though we also can’t dismiss the idea that they played the situation perfectly and pounced on an opportunity other teams allowed to slide away. We can’t say whether the market was right or wrong on Desmond, because we don’t even know what the market thought of him. We also don’t know what Desmond thought of himself. Some free agents choose certain things (comfort, proximity to home, chance to win, length of contract, the ability to hit free agency again quickly, who knows) over the most money on the longest deal available. In Desmond’s case, though, there weren’t even sufficient offers to help us discern what Desmond valued, or what he was willing to risk. Nothing so good that it might have tempted him to go another direction ever materialized. It should have. Desmond deserved that kind of broad choice, and we deserved the chance to see where things stood.

Sooner or later, this summer, the news will fill up with rumors and whispers about the negotiations on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. This will be the third CBA to which I’ve paid serious attention as it was hammered out, so I know better than to think positive reforms are coming to the gameplay, Draft, or revenue-sharing aspects of the Agreement. I do, however, hold out hope that Desmond will be the last free agent to be denied a real chance to test the market and sell his services to the bidder who offers him the most attractive package. There’s nothing good about the qualifying offer system, in the context of the Draft strictures the current CBA implemented, so either the QO or those Draft strictures need to go. The second one would set a more dangerous precedent and cost the owners way more money, so while I’m rooting for that, I’m expecting, and will accept, the first one. I worry, mostly, that even that is too much to hope for.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
hotstatrat
6/20
Yeah, not only has their best player has been Desmond, their second best has Colby Lewis. On the other hand, their worse player has been Cecil Fielder. Who could have predicted all that? And who can say with any cofidence what's going to happen the rest of the way?
sharkmano2
6/21
If someone offered me odds on Cecil Fielder not having a great year in 2016, I would have put down some serious cash.
nikpin2720
6/20
In response to the first paragraph, are you underestimating the true talent of the Rangers? This team has been quite good since around the trade deadline last year, and at what point is that no longer a small sample size? The poor run differential is attributed mostly to extremely poor bullpen performances by the likes of Tom Wilhelmsen, Shawn Tolleson, Andrew Faulkner, Anthony Ranaudo, and Luke Jackson. The only one currently on the 25 man roster is Tolleson, who has pitched better of late (and has a positive track record). Granted, if replacement pitchers pitched these innings they would still be giving up runs in their place, but I have a hard time they would be as poor as that collective group.

Defensive metrics imply that this team is elite in the field, which should make up for some of the pitching deficiencies, which could be improved upon if/when Darvish and Kela return from injuries, and the possibilities of trade acquisitions to shore up the middle relief.

Offensively, Elvis made an adjustment midway through last season and it has tremendously improved him at the plate where he is far less of a liability now. Rua was always a bat first player in the minors, and his rookie numbers were poor mostly due to playing through injury. While he may never be a full time player, he does mash lefties. Fielder and Moreland slumped tremendously throughout a majority of the season thus far, and that should balance out the expected performance of the offense as a whole with the over achievement of the likes of Desmond, Mazara, Elvis, and Rua.

The point of this far too long post is that I think the numbers underrate this Rangers team, and I think it would be a fascinating read if someone dug in to why this team is so good in the standings, and see if there are some numbers behind why they are out performing their expect results (defense, batting with RISP, record in 1 run games, league leading in punches landed, etc.)
TeamPineTar
6/20
This is not at all to contradict Matthew's fine, concise essay and its many valid points. For the Rangers in general, the one thing that stands out to me is the horrific total of their injuries in 2015 both in player days lost and in the quality of those players. Leaving that phenomenon behind them is a huge factor in their success. The numbers right now tell us that the M's are a better team? Check 'em again in four months, lads. The Rangers have half a stable who could be better in the second half, and some will: Profar all the way, Holland, Moreland, a healthy Chirinos, a better bullpen as Nikpin covered...and more.